Title:A Crude Awakening – The Oil Crash Director:Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack Released:2006
What is the central argument or narrative of the film? This film discusses the problem the looming energy crisis that we are approaching. The film states that we are at, if not past, peak oil. Peak oil is the point where we are producing the most oil possible before we begin the decline in available oil and the increase in oil prices. The film then argues that we will need to go through a radical change in the way we life once we realize that our oil supply is indeed limited.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out? At the beginning of the film Terry Lynn Karl, a political science professor, stated that it was “important to keep the world on oil for as long as possible”. This statement was very shocking to me but as I watched the rest of the film I could see why politicians and corporations would see it that way. This mindset that we should run headfirst into the wall with our eyes closed is a major sustainability problem. It will make the transition to the other side of the Hubbart curve much more difficult. As one scientist said, it would take twenty years notice to minimize the damage from losing oil as an energy source.
The film had a section on how oil is a 'Magnet for War'. The way that oil can influence war has only been detrimental to both human lives and to the environment. Although they do not state it directly the film implies and shows evidence that the wars in the Middle East were started over oil. The film talks about how the uneven distribution of oil around the planet will lead to richer companies going into increasingly unstable countries to secure a dwindling oil supply. They cite examples from the Darfur as a sustainability problem saying that although, yes, there were two ethnic groups involved the reason that the northern Sudanese decided to displace those in the south was because southern Sudan was where all of the oil was.
The film also addresses the problem of the reported oil reserve numbers. There is evidence that many of the oil reserve figures that countries release are inaccurate. Once OPEC decided that the amount of oil a country could export depended on the country's oil reserves the oil reserves of Kuwait and many other countries doubled or increased dramatically. Since then they have been static. Many experts are wondering how these countries are able to maintain these reserves when they are exporting more than they are drilling. Many experts also agree that although the production of oil has leveled out the demand for oil is still increasing. This is due to third world countries seeing how luxurious Western culture is and attempt to mimic it. The mentality that they need oil to do this is increasingly unsustainable.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? One reason that I found helped the films persuasiveness was that all of the people interviewed were very reputable. Many films and documentaries don't match this film on it's sources. The extensiveness of the disaster we are facing really hit me when I learned that one barrel of oil contains as much energy as twelve people working for a whole year. Not only this but there is so little concern for the future that a barrel can be pulled out of the ground in the middle east for a dollar. This translates into incredibly cheap labour that cannot be replaced.
Another specialist estimated that if oil were to be valued more fairly and with sustainability in mind it should cost around 75 dollars per gallon. The fact that we are underestimating the true price of oil shows how we are still caught up in the era where most people (99/100 according to the movie) still believe oil to be a resource that will be around forever.
By showing the boom and bust cycles that happened in the past the film convinced me that it was bound to happen. By looking at the boom and bust cycles of America, Venezuela and the Caspian Sea the film convinced me that the cycle was bound to happen again.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? I feel that the film looked down too much upon alternate energy sources. They claim that none of them would work and that they would never replace oil. This may be true as of now but there has been not much effort to expand technologies in those areas due to most of energy companies resources being allocated to researching better ways of extracting oil.
At the end of the film one expert spoke about how Evolution moves forwards and that we will move into a new age instead of reverting to past technologies. I believe that if there is a large enough disruption in our way of life. That if the shock of running out of oil is strong enough, I can't see why we wouldn't to some extent move back towards past technologies. I see this argument more as a way of softening the blow of the film's message.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? The film mentioned that oil was incredibly cheap compared to most purchasable liquids but did not compare it directly to anything, only stating that it was cheaper than bottled water. What I wanted to know was both what it was similar in price as and if its price were fairly represented. Although it makes sense that oil should be cheaper than the products that it is then incorporated into at around $3 dollars a gallon it is cheaper than milk and almost half the price of bottled water. According to my research the reason behind oil prices is that it is at this time so simple to extract from the ground. Not only is it easy to obtain but it is easy to obtain large amounts of it. Due to the large supply there is no need for it to be expensive. This is different from milk which has to be farmed and waited upon. With oil it's there when you want it.
What audiences does the film best address? This film is best addressed for people who are not only looking to help change the world in a better way but who can also actually make a difference. After that I would have to say that one needs to be relatively well educated to be able to soak this film correctly. Otherwise I feel that they would either take the film too seriously or would simply accuse it of all being false.
Does the annotation describe points of intervention suggested by the film? Compared to the other films I have watched this was distinctly lacking points of intervention. Although the film covered the options that would be seen as solutions in other films, those of alternate energy and more compact living practices. It did not see them as solutions that were feasible. The alternate form of energy that they thought was most possible was solar, and even then they said that if it were to even attempt to replace oil the combined area of solar panels we would need to build would take up about half of California. I feel that the strongest point of intervention that the film supplied was that the greatest weapon we have against running out of oil is knowledge and human ingenuity.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? The film would have been more educational if they had presented some solutions that the audience could take away with them. Although it was educational to have the film speak about how without oil the human population would plummet I feel that they did not take advantage of how the film could help spread knowledge as well as practices that could help delay the onset of expensive oil which would in turn give us more time to get ready for the time when producing oil is no longer profitable.
Director: Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack
Released: 2006
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film discusses the problem the looming energy crisis that we are approaching. The film states that we are at, if not past, peak oil. Peak oil is the point where we are producing the most oil possible before we begin the decline in available oil and the increase in oil prices. The film then argues that we will need to go through a radical change in the way we life once we realize that our oil supply is indeed limited.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
At the beginning of the film Terry Lynn Karl, a political science professor, stated that it was “important to keep the world on oil for as long as possible”. This statement was very shocking to me but as I watched the rest of the film I could see why politicians and corporations would see it that way. This mindset that we should run headfirst into the wall with our eyes closed is a major sustainability problem. It will make the transition to the other side of the Hubbart curve much more difficult. As one scientist said, it would take twenty years notice to minimize the damage from losing oil as an energy source.
The film had a section on how oil is a 'Magnet for War'. The way that oil can influence war has only been detrimental to both human lives and to the environment. Although they do not state it directly the film implies and shows evidence that the wars in the Middle East were started over oil. The film talks about how the uneven distribution of oil around the planet will lead to richer companies going into increasingly unstable countries to secure a dwindling oil supply. They cite examples from the Darfur as a sustainability problem saying that although, yes, there were two ethnic groups involved the reason that the northern Sudanese decided to displace those in the south was because southern Sudan was where all of the oil was.
The film also addresses the problem of the reported oil reserve numbers. There is evidence that many of the oil reserve figures that countries release are inaccurate. Once OPEC decided that the amount of oil a country could export depended on the country's oil reserves the oil reserves of Kuwait and many other countries doubled or increased dramatically. Since then they have been static. Many experts are wondering how these countries are able to maintain these reserves when they are exporting more than they are drilling. Many experts also agree that although the production of oil has leveled out the demand for oil is still increasing. This is due to third world countries seeing how luxurious Western culture is and attempt to mimic it. The mentality that they need oil to do this is increasingly unsustainable.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling?
One reason that I found helped the films persuasiveness was that all of the people interviewed were very reputable. Many films and documentaries don't match this film on it's sources. The extensiveness of the disaster we are facing really hit me when I learned that one barrel of oil contains as much energy as twelve people working for a whole year. Not only this but there is so little concern for the future that a barrel can be pulled out of the ground in the middle east for a dollar. This translates into incredibly cheap labour that cannot be replaced.
Another specialist estimated that if oil were to be valued more fairly and with sustainability in mind it should cost around 75 dollars per gallon. The fact that we are underestimating the true price of oil shows how we are still caught up in the era where most people (99/100 according to the movie) still believe oil to be a resource that will be around forever.
By showing the boom and bust cycles that happened in the past the film convinced me that it was bound to happen. By looking at the boom and bust cycles of America, Venezuela and the Caspian Sea the film convinced me that the cycle was bound to happen again.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I feel that the film looked down too much upon alternate energy sources. They claim that none of them would work and that they would never replace oil. This may be true as of now but there has been not much effort to expand technologies in those areas due to most of energy companies resources being allocated to researching better ways of extracting oil.
At the end of the film one expert spoke about how Evolution moves forwards and that we will move into a new age instead of reverting to past technologies. I believe that if there is a large enough disruption in our way of life. That if the shock of running out of oil is strong enough, I can't see why we wouldn't to some extent move back towards past technologies. I see this argument more as a way of softening the blow of the film's message.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out?
The film mentioned that oil was incredibly cheap compared to most purchasable liquids but did not compare it directly to anything, only stating that it was cheaper than bottled water. What I wanted to know was both what it was similar in price as and if its price were fairly represented. Although it makes sense that oil should be cheaper than the products that it is then incorporated into at around $3 dollars a gallon it is cheaper than milk and almost half the price of bottled water. According to my research the reason behind oil prices is that it is at this time so simple to extract from the ground. Not only is it easy to obtain but it is easy to obtain large amounts of it. Due to the large supply there is no need for it to be expensive. This is different from milk which has to be farmed and waited upon. With oil it's there when you want it.
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/104996/Why-Gas-in-the-U.S.-Is-So-Cheap
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/01/news/international/usgas_price/
http://www.cockeyed.com/science/gallon/liquid.html
What audiences does the film best address?
This film is best addressed for people who are not only looking to help change the world in a better way but who can also actually make a difference. After that I would have to say that one needs to be relatively well educated to be able to soak this film correctly. Otherwise I feel that they would either take the film too seriously or would simply accuse it of all being false.
Does the annotation describe points of intervention suggested by the film?
Compared to the other films I have watched this was distinctly lacking points of intervention. Although the film covered the options that would be seen as solutions in other films, those of alternate energy and more compact living practices. It did not see them as solutions that were feasible. The alternate form of energy that they thought was most possible was solar, and even then they said that if it were to even attempt to replace oil the combined area of solar panels we would need to build would take up about half of California. I feel that the strongest point of intervention that the film supplied was that the greatest weapon we have against running out of oil is knowledge and human ingenuity.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
The film would have been more educational if they had presented some solutions that the audience could take away with them. Although it was educational to have the film speak about how without oil the human population would plummet I feel that they did not take advantage of how the film could help spread knowledge as well as practices that could help delay the onset of expensive oil which would in turn give us more time to get ready for the time when producing oil is no longer profitable.